Even if he improves, another important question that we need to ask, is: Does he fit in, and play well with the team?
I did not see the game, so Im not sure how well he actually played with the other players.
If he improves, I would be thrilled, and not saying that he wont, but he would still need to work well with other players in his new form.

Oh man Matt, this is gonna be "controversial". Good that you put the disclaimer in though!

On a more on-topic note, I think if he continues to play this way all season he will improve the team, and won't be a liability which already makes him a candidate for Most Improved Player. But yes, if he continues to play with effort, rebound and play decent defense as he did in this particular game, then I'd be thrilled to have him on the Raptors moving forward. Some might talk about his 4-14 shooting night, but offense isn't his problem. That will come.

Oh man Matt, this is gonna be "controversial". Good that you put the disclaimer in though!

lol - I think it is a legit question, even with the attempt to stir the pot.

On a more on-topic note, I think if he continues to play this way all season he will improve the team, and won't be a liability which already makes him a candidate for Most Improved Player. But yes, if he continues to play with effort, rebound and play decent defense as he did in this particular game, then I'd be thrilled to have him on the Raptors moving forward. Some might talk about his 4-14 shooting night, but offense isn't his problem. That will come.

Exactly. There will always be poor shooting nights but at least he got himself to the line 7 times, hitting 6. As long as he is mixing up the attempts (ie. posting up) then there is no issue on offense.

Actually, one issue would be stop trying to create with more than 2 dribbles. It rarely leads anywhere good for him and with his long strides, he doesn't need more than 2 dribbles to get anywhere from outside the 3 point line to the rim.

Exactly. There will always be poor shooting nights but at least he got himself to the line 7 times, hitting 6. As long as he is mixing up the attempts (ie. posting up) then there is no issue on offense.

Actually, one issue would be stop trying to create with more than 2 dribbles. It rarely leads anywhere good for him and with his long strides, he doesn't need more than 2 dribbles to get anywhere from outside the 3 point line to the rim.

Actually offensively, I'd love to see Bargnani use his body and agility to get in the middle. I've seen him do eurosteps and little moves to get open dunks/layups and they usually work, he just doesn't do it often. He actually has a pretty quick step, and he should use it.

Actually offensively, I'd love to see Bargnani use his body and agility to get in the middle. I've seen him do eurosteps and little moves to get open dunks/layups and they usually work, he just doesn't do it often. He actually has a pretty quick step, and he should use it.

As long as he doesn't dribble more than twice, it all sounds good to me!

Forget the game for a moment, Bargnani as a person seems very confident and content - his eyes are almost sparkling. It is good to see. We have literally watched him grow in to a man.

It's very good that he isn't concerned with his shooting night. It's a very different personality we're seeing from Bargnani, if someone asked him what he should have improved in a game where he shot badly he would have probably talked about his shot. He seemed to be unaffected by the shooting night, and completely focused on three things: team, defense and effort. Love it.

Sorry for not reading through, but well there was a lot and it was a bit tedious to read. I apologize for that.

As for the example, it still doesn't support your point. You are saying that WS shows that AI was over applauded and that the team was a lot better than most remember. But that is quite irrelevant, because WS "shows" that AI was 9th best player on his team and he wasn't, he was the best and most influential player on the team. Take away Allen Iverson and that team doesn't even make the playoffs. Who's going to lead them there? The 9 "better" players? From what I remember that 2001 team had: Ratliff, Mutombo, Eric Snow, McKie? The team was pretty "modest" without Allen Iverson, so it is a pretty bad example to support what you are saying.

I agree with your point to a certain extent, not fully but I do understand why you say it, but this just doesn't support it.

First I never once said Iverson wasn't the best player on the team, or he deserved to be the 9th best player on his team. Again the entire point that Soft was trying to make was that (paraphrasing) "WP says he is the 9th best player on his team but he was the best so the stat is wrong". One example, based on opinion, doesn't prove anything about statistical value.

second, what makes Iverson the 'best' player on the team?

What if Iverson is replaced with a scorer who is more efficient... is the team even better? Worse?

Whats happening here is you are trying to tell me that the stat doesn't work because it doesn't fit in your's (or soft's) opinion. The thing is, the stat doesn't care what anyone's opinion is. Its raw data.

(Just off hand 'MVP' is almost always given to the highest scorer on the team with the best record. Its almost silly how consistently its handed out based on 2 peices of criteria most years. I'd also mention one of the best defensive players to ever exist (Mutombo) can hardly be called modest)

First I never once said Iverson wasn't the best player on the team, or he deserved to be the 9th best player on his team. Again the entire point that Soft was trying to make was that (paraphrasing) "WP says he is the 9th best player on his team but he was the best so the stat is wrong". One example, based on opinion, doesn't prove anything about statistical value.

second, what makes Iverson the 'best' player on the team?

What if Iverson is replaced with a scorer who is more efficient... is the team even better? Worse?

Whats happening here is you are trying to tell me that the stat doesn't work because it doesn't fit in your's (or soft's) opinion. The thing is, the stat doesn't care what anyone's opinion is. Its raw data.

(Just off hand 'MVP' is almost always given to the highest scorer on the team with the best record. Its almost silly how consistently its handed out based on 2 peices of criteria most years. I'd also mention one of the best defensive players to ever exist (Mutombo) can hardly be called modest)

You might not have said it, but it was implied wasn't it? Or are you arguing that he isn't the best player, but he isn't not the best player? Because if that is the case, then you're contradicting your point.

We can't know if the team will be better or worse if he was replaced now can we? But in 2001 I doubt anyone would want to replace AI with a "more efficient" scorer. There are very few high volume guards who shoot efficiently. One reason is because they take shots that "lesser" players would never take, and those are shots which make them superstars in the game.

I'm not saying the stat doesn't work, I'm saying this is a bad example to support your argument which says it does work. In the case of the 76ers during AI's prime, him being 9th on his team in WS, thus apparently being 9th best player, shows that the stat doesn't always work. The thing is, the stat doesn't see the game and doesn't consider the large amount of variables in a basketball game which cannot be recorded statistically.

So you honestly believe that AI wasn't the best player on the team, and that he didn't deserve MVP? And that the 76ers didn't need AI. And I never said Mutombo was modest, rather the team (other than Iverson) as a whole, and I don't think anyone would ever expect Mutombo to lead the 76ers through the playoffs?

You might not have said it, but it was implied wasn't it? Or are you arguing that he isn't the best player, but he isn't not the best player? Because if that is the case, then you're contradicting your point.

We can't know if the team will be better or worse if he was replaced now can we? But in 2001 I doubt anyone would want to replace AI with a "more efficient" scorer. There are very few high volume guards who shoot efficiently. One reason is because they take shots that "lesser" players would never take, and those are shots which make them superstars in the game.

I'm not saying the stat doesn't work, I'm saying this is a bad example to support your argument which says it does work. In the case of the 76ers during AI's prime, him being 9th on his team in WS, thus apparently being 9th best player, shows that the stat doesn't always work. The thing is, the stat doesn't see the game and doesn't consider the large amount of variables in a basketball game which cannot be recorded statistically.

So you honestly believe that AI wasn't the best player on the team, and that he didn't deserve MVP? And that the 76ers didn't need AI. And I never said Mutombo was modest, rather the team (other than Iverson) as a whole, and I don't think anyone would ever expect Mutombo to lead the 76ers through the playoffs?

You never answered my question. And if we can't tell if the team will be better or worse if he was replaced how can we say he didn't deserve the statistical value he ended up with?

And yes there are high volume guards who shoot efficiently... they just happen to be great players.

I also never said the stat, or any stats, always work. I said before, and I'll say again, they are a tool. They are not perfect. No one is saying they are. That doesn't mean they are wrong though either, shouldn't be used, or can't be applied to individuals.

Do I believe Iverson was the best player on his team? Yes. But he shot too much and if he would have adjusted his game (ie. passed the ball) he could have been a true great. Instead he was a ball hog and that lead to serious inefficiencies with his game. Did he deserve the MVP? No, not even close. Did the 76ers need Iverson? Yes. But do I think they would they have been better with a more efficient player, even if that meant less scoring from that position? Yes without a doubt.